Induced seismicity and carbon storage: Risk assessment and mitigation strategies
- Lawrence Livermore National Lab. (LLNL), Livermore, CA (United States)
- Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. (LBNL), Berkeley, CA (United States)
Geologic carbon storage (GCS) is widely recognized as an important strategy to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Like all technologies, however, sequestration projects create a number of potential environmental and safety hazards that must be addressed. These include earthquakes—from microseismicity to large, damaging events—that can be triggered by altering pore-pressure conditions in the subsurface. To date, measured seismicity due to CO2 injection has been limited to a few modest events, but the hazard exists and must be considered. There are important similarities between CO2 injection and fluid injection from other applications that have induced significant events—e.g. geothermal systems, waste-fluid injection, hydrocarbon extraction, and others. There are also important distinctions among these technologies that should be considered in a discussion of seismic hazard. This report focuses on strategies for assessing and mitigating risk during each phase of a CO2 storage project. Four key risks related to fault reactivation and induced seismicity were considered. Induced slip on faults could potentially lead to: (1) infrastructure damage, (2) a public nuisance, (3) brine-contaminated drinking water, and (4) CO2-contaminated drinking water. These scenarios lead to different types of damage—to property, to drinking water quality, or to the public welfare. Given these four risks, this report focuses on strategies for assessing (and altering) their likelihoods of occurrence and the damage that may result. This report begins with an overview of the basic physical mechanisms behind induced seismicity. This science basis—and its gaps—is crucial because it forms the foundation for risk assessment and mitigation. Available techniques for characterizing and monitoring seismic behavior are also described. Again, this technical basis—and its limitations—must be factored into the risk assessment and mitigation approach. A phased approach to risk management is then introduced. The basic goal of the phased approach is to constantly adapt site operations to current conditions and available characterization data. The remainder of the report then focuses in detail on different components of the monitoring, risk assessment, and mitigation strategies. Issues in current seismic risk assessment methods that must be modified to address induce seismicity are highlighted. The report then concludes with several specific recommendations for operators and regulatory authorities to consider when selecting, permitting, and operating a storage project.
- Research Organization:
- Lawrence Livermore National Lab. (LLNL), Livermore, CA (United States)
- Sponsoring Organization:
- USDOE
- DOE Contract Number:
- AC52-07NA27344
- OSTI ID:
- 1378542
- Report Number(s):
- LLNL-TR-674138
- Country of Publication:
- United States
- Language:
- English
Similar Records
Progress in monitoring strategies for risk reduction in geologic CO2 storage
Effects of in situ stress measurement uncertainties on assessment of predicted seismic activity and risk associated with a hypothetical industrial-scale geologic CO 2 sequestration operation